Bailey Stretton & Ostrowski
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF
ALLEN JONES ) CIVIL ACTION LAW
vs. ) NO.
JEFFREY GOBLE, )
WILLIAM OLSON, )
Defendants ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
This is a civil rights action brought by an investigator in the Inspector
General's office of
Jurisdiction and Venue
Jurisdiction is conferred on this court by 28
3. A jury trial is demanded.
4. Venue is properly in the Middle District because all parties, witnesses, and evidence is common to Dauphin County Pennsylvania which is located in the Middle District's jurisdiction.
5. This plaintiff has a right under the First Amendment to be free of retaliation for speaking out on matters of public concern and he also has a right to be free of retaliation for exercising his right petition his government for a redress of grievances through the court system.
6. Plaintiff further alleges that the” Media Inquiries” policy and the “Confidentiality of Records and Information” policy (hereinafter “policy's”) of the Office of Inspector General (hereinafter “OIG”) are unconstitutional as written and unconstitutional as applied.
7. The aforementioned policies are word for word as follows:
“Confidentiality of Records and Information
OIG employees should consider all of the investigative work they do during an investigation to be confidential. OIG employees should not discuss or disseminate documents, information, records, interview reports, written correspondence, interview notes, case file information, final reports, information from Commonwealth agency computer systems, and investigative case files that they gather toward an investigation with anyone outside of the OIG unless prior approval is granted through their normal or assigned chain of command and with appropriate releases and/or receipts.”
OIG employees, who receive inquiries from newspaper, television, or radio reporters regarding OIG investigations or other business, whether generally or relating to specific matters, should not attempt to answer the caller's questions. Take information regarding: the name of the reporter; the specific organization from which the person is calling; the reporter's telephone number; the reporter's deadline; and, the specific subject of the reporter's inquiry. Advise the caller that the OIG's Press Secretary or Deputy Press Secretary will return the call promptly. Employees will immediately forward the media request to the OIG press staff by e-mail message with a copy of the message sent to the Inspector General.”
9. The letter makes specific reference to the aforementioned OIG policies.
More specifically, in that complaint, Jones alleged Ethics Act violations at
high levels of the
12. During the course of the litigation it was revealed that investigative efforts that Jones wished to pursue, were, in the opinions of Jones superior's, beyond the scope of the OIG mission, and any investigation he may have initiated or contemplated was closed. In acknowledging this decision Mr. Sattele gratuitously offered that he believed Mr. Jones “had something there” in wanting to continue looking into the drug companies. This decision was made the fall of 2002 and the testimony is recorded in Sattele’s deposition.
13. Later, after being confronted about his activities, Jones requested clarification from his superior's as to how much freedom he had to pursue inquiries into misconduct by the drug companies.
14. Advice and counsel was sought from the OIG's office by Jones' counsel who was also advised that the investigation was closed and what Jones did on his own time was his affair.
15. At the time this advice was sought Jones' counsel was insistent that Jones had a right and a duty to pursue investigating the drug companies and corrupt officials provided he did not interfere or detract from his duties as an OIG investigator. The response to Jones' counsel was that what Jones did on his own time was Jones's business. This understanding was reached in a context where the defendants in the previous action admitted that they had not referred any of the information that Jones discovered about the unlawful activities of the drug companies and high placed officials and policies to any other investigative agency.
16. Jones asserts to this day, that his efforts, and the efforts of other whistleblowers like him, are responsible for a growing press and public interest in this area of pervasive public corruption. Jones further alleges that his superior's, and Pennsylvania's governmental institutions, have acted to cover-up, discourage, and limit any investigations or oversight into the corrupt practices of these large drug companies and the corrupt public officials who have acted with them.
17. After the defendants in the action at Number 4:-CV-1910 were denied their motion for summary judgment wherein a sought to dismiss Jones' complaint, they appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on a theory of qualified immunity. That appeal is now pending.
18. Jones alleges that the disciplinary action he now faces is retaliatory in nature.
19. Jones further alleges that the retaliatory action is because Jones filed the earlier related lawsuit and because he is opposing the defendants appeals. The defendants in the aforementioned previous suit included the previous OIG and Jones previous supervisor who is still with the OIG.
20 . Based upon information and belief Jones also believes that the defendants are acting to prevent the disclosure of pervasive fraud and corruption of which the office of the OIG and the political leaders above it from both the former, and this administration, have knowledge and awareness.
21. Based upon information and belief Jones alleges that his efforts to inform government leaders outside of this administration, including members of the United States Congress, and parts of the federal bureaucracy, about the drug companies corrupt practices and the illegal manipulation of drug information for profit, is the reason he is being unlawfully mistreated by the defendants above.
22 . The defendants have unlawfully removed the plaintiff from his job.
Defendants have pre-decided that in carrying out what plaintiff believes are
actions directed at him from the defendants, superiors that the decision has
already been made to dismiss the plaintiff and that the PDC is a mere
formality. For example plaintiff has
already been removed from the OIG telephone and e-mail directory. This occurred on
24 . Plaintiff bases this belief on the fact that when he was informed of the upcoming PDC that he was walked out of the building, intentionally intimidating, harassing and humiliating him as a way to communicate fear and threats to other employees that they must not place the law, their moral duties to the Commonwealth, or their duties as public employees above blind loyalty to the political leaders above them in Pennsylvania's executive branch including those having unlawful agendas not in the public interest.
25. Prior to being summarily dismissed from the workplace without even an opportunity to return to his desk, Jones was periodically harassed and questioned, even about his use of personal time by the defendants insistently inquiring as to who he was talking to and what he was doing.
26. Each of the individual defendants above named harassed and intimidated the plaintiff and worked together to accomplish the unlawfully based disciplinary procedures being used as a pretext to dismiss the plaintiff and thereby silence him and also to retaliate against him for proceeding with legal actions against officials in the OIG's office.
27. Based upon information and belief the defendant alleges that the actions of the defendants and others in Pennsylvania's state government above them are unlawful and are part of an unlawful scheme to cover up and protect the illegal actions by certain large drug companies(and others),that includes, but is not limited to, the misrepresentation of drug data, and the misuse of drugs, endangering the lives and well-being of individual American citizens, all at the expense of the rights of taxpayers and in violation of national law and policies, let alone in violation of the laws of Pennsylvania.
plaintiff demands judgment of the defendants jointly and severally for the
deprivation of, and for conspiring to deprive him of his rights under the First
Amendment to the Constitution of the
BAILEY STRETTON & OSTROWSKI
By: s/Don Bailey, Esquire